On Unity: A Response to Alison McDowell Pt. III

On Principles and Compromise

If you haven’t read the initial essays in this series, here are the links to Part I: The Crux of the Issue, and Part II: Dialectic and Dialogue.

You may be surprised to learn that many libertarians are influenced by “leftist” thinkers as their foundational principle of non-aggression does not preclude any form of collectivist organization so long as participation is characterized by voluntary consent. Many left-libertarians advocate for worker-owned cooperatives, communal living arrangements, and even socialist organizations dedicated to providing equitable healthcare and education services to all members, so long as membership is voluntary. In this recent conversation with left-libertarian J. Todd Ring, we discuss the differences and similarities between modern progressivism and a left-libertarianism open to all lifestyle choices.

If the progressive can release themselves from the dialectical sense of history, many will be surprised to learn that there is little conflict from the libertarian point of view. As in the case of the recent dispute between blogger Alison McDowell and activist Derrick Broze, libertarians are often open to dialogue and open-minded concerning the implementation of collectivist ideals at the community level, so long as those ideals do not conflate with the notion of voluntary consent and adhere to the principle of non-violence.

Alison mentions that she feels obligated to place her principles over the need for unity in our common goal to combat the forces of technocracy that threaten to engulf humanity. Indeed, it is true that the principles of libertarianism do fundamentally conflict with a collectivist philosophy that requires controlling the behavior of others, but it in no way conflicts with those who choose collectivist lifestyles. The libertarian does not want to engage in this conflict, rather we ask that the collectivist agrees to engage in dialogue and contemplate a compromise that could prove pragmatic in the common goal to resist the forces currently aligned against all of us.

This essay will offer the compromise of working together to decentralize power as a simple solution to the never-ending ideological struggle currently threatening to neutralize the technocratic resistance before it even gets off the ground. Technocracy demands the centralization of power, through the centralization of data. Can we not all agree to decentralize power, both political and economic, onto the community level where these ideological conversations can continue after the threat has passed?

Libertarianism Is Inclusive

With the hours I spent on social media arguing with “anarcho-communists” I did learn quite a bit about the left-wing perspective. If anything, my libertarianism was pushed more socially to the left. I also basically stopped using the word Capitalism, as many disagreements stemmed from arguments caused by using two different definitions. If Capitalism means a system of economy where the means of production are centralized into the hands of a few, I want nothing to do with it. Libertarians argue for the decentralization of power.

Within the historical paradigm of the dialectical left, there seems to be some sense that if power is decentralized, then ultimately the powerful will take control. I have seen no evidence of this. The only solution from their perspective is some form of government, a system, to prevent the enslavement of the many by the few. The left argues that the centralization of capital is the means through which such control is asserted, and this centralization occurs naturally if the economy is based on libertarian ideals.

In a decentralized economy based on free-market principles, how can capital become centralized? From my perspective, it is precisely through the use of government power that the few are able to control the many. Government monopolization of currency allows the criminal class to profit off a captive market, and government barriers to entry, constructed to prevent free capital exchange, provides the environment where the centralization of capital in Wall Street and other national markets throughout the world occurs. In other words, the government is the tool the capitalist class uses to centralize the means of production and only the belief in government enables the masses to be subjugated to the crony capitalist machine. If only the many would stop believing in the virtue of centralized government this most powerful tool of enslavement would disappear.

I will argue in essays to follow that this belief in the necessity of government power is the essence of patriarchal imperialism. It is the free market, based on natural law, and self-organizing principles reflective of the state of nature, which ultimately stand in alignment with matriarchal systems that offer a sustainable path forward.

I would add that in my personal journey towards decolonization, I have spent decades exploring pre-colonized systems of thought. None, in my experience, have observed a dialectical sense of history that posits the inevitability of the rise of an unjust system, from the principles of individual freedom. If anything, my participation in both Eastern methods of personal cultivation and indigenous ways of ceremony have reinforced my libertarian views.

Though I engaged in discussion with those of the leftist persuasion with the hopes of finding some type of compromise, I found it impossible to do so when dialectic principles include the necessity of exerting control over others. Such is the nature of my libertarian principles and seems to be the root cause of the impasse that frames the current ideological conversation. Ultimately, I came to believe we were arguing over personal lifestyle choices. I could care less if someone decides to engage in voluntary community organizing which could include utilizing a gift economy or participating in a communal living arrangement where all resources are shared. I have no conflict.

Conversely, the left seemed adamant that certain behaviors must be prohibited. Notions such as the use of certain currencies, currency use at all, stock, and currency markets, paying rent, engaging in legal contracts, or defense of private property were anathema to many of them. These lifestyle choices were considered to be tantamount to participating in a slave system and declared an absolute injustice. But how can this be when engaged in through voluntary association? I have yet to receive an answer to this question.

How could one even enforce such a system? This would require some version of authoritarianism designed to prevent certain people from making certain choices. Individuals are autonomous beings capable of making their own choices. So long as those choices are consensual, I don’t see any injustice. This truth is self-evident.

The Common Goal of Decentralization

As a libertarian, I welcome all who seek to work with me towards the end goal of decentralizing the forces of political and economic power currently seeking to impose a technocratic future. Personal lifestyle choices regarding healthcare or home economics are just that, personal. In a free society, participation in all alternative lifestyles is welcome so long as they adhere to the principle of non-violence. The libertarian does not require that all people must participate in a “system” that includes legal contracts, private property rights, currency use, or any other form of personal economy. It simply asks that those who choose to utilize these tools be allowed to do so under the rubric of voluntary consent.

Likewise, the libertarian has no conflict with those who chose to live a collectivist lifestyle. The principles of libertarianism allow for all to freely associate in whatever form of social organization they desire. If only those who posit the necessity of a collectivist lifestyle would afford the same respect to others, could we not unite against the criminal class that oppresses us all equally?

There exists, no doubt, a difference in the fundamental principles of libertarianism, which requires open-mindedness to all lifestyle choices, and the progressive, which presumes that certain choices will inevitably lead to the oppression of others, regardless of the voluntary nature of the association. Perhaps we are at an impasse, and of course, all must do what they feel is right.

Nonetheless, I would like to offer a solution to this quandary that may function as a temporary compromise in order to provide a platform for what I see as the necessary unity required to combat the current system that we all agree, if allowed to continue, will result in a dystopian future for all of us.

Can we agree to work together to decentralize power, both political and economic, from the hands of the few? Clearly, we all recognize that it is this centralization that lies at the root of the current conflict. No one disputes our common analysis of the problem, in terms of the awareness that control of society at large by a technocratic elite represents an existential threat. Both sides agree that the centralization of power allows for the few to dominate the many. Issues arise only in a discussion about solutions.

Assuming we are able to stem the tide of totalitarianism that threatens us all, is the communal lifestyle required to ensure that such centralization never happens again? Or, as the libertarian asserts, can a free society that offers the opportunity for both community and individuality to live in harmony create the path forward that will lead to a sustainable future in concert with the state of nature?

Can we agree to wait until a unified resistance, working together against this powerful opponent, has decentralized power into the hands of communities, before we have these ideological conversations? Let us put aside these insurmountable differences, and the unwavering principles behind them, for the time being, and work together to decentralize power. This simple, common goal is enough and provides a practical solution to our apparently insurmountable ideological differences.

The Top/Down Paradigm

I suggest moving away from the dominant left/right paradigm, which utilizes a dialectic sense of history that clearly sows division amongst those who resist technocracy, and instead contemplate a top/down paradigm that, I believe, provides a more accurate understanding of the process that has centralized the means of production in the hands of the few. Such a paradigm shift, I will argue in later essays, can provide a unifying political philosophy more effective at combating the forces of technocracy currently seeking to assimilate the masses into a machine consciousness that literally threatens our very ability to exist as autonomous beings. The stakes are simply too high to continue the never-ending conflicts and division inevitable through the engagement of outmoded ways of thinking.

For those attached to a dialectical sense of history and an unwavering belief that libertarian society must, of necessity, result in a system of economic injustice, this fundamental conflict in principle may prove impossible to overcome. It is my hope that our common understanding of the current problems stemming from an imbalance of power in the hands of the few, coupled with the common goal of decentralizing that power into the hands of the many, may provide an opportunity to build the kind of political power necessary to promote the common good over the long term.

For the record, I am happy to engage in dialogue with anyone skeptical of these assertions. It is my strong feeling that only through free and public debate can we as a people discover a narrative that transcends the many internal conflicts currently preventing the 99% from uniting against the few who profit from the centralization of the means of production imposed utilizing the power of the government/corporate complex.

The Need for Compromise in Deference to Unity

I would like to end this series on a positive note with this story of unity and compromise. In 2015, I began engaging in local politics hoping to empower my community by implementing policy changes that could allow fundamental political and economic decisions to be made at the community level, rather than by state and federal actors. Toward this end, I helped organize a campaign for Measure W, an initiative that strived to transition Mendocino County into a Charter County which provides as much local autonomy as allowed under the California State Constitution. Our ultimate goal was to include the creation of a county public bank in order to separate county finances from Wall Street and provide an avenue for local tax dollars and county pension funds to benefit the local economy rather than the transnational corporate system. If you are not familiar with the concept of public banking, check out my interviews with Ellen Brown of the Public Banking Institute (here and here).

While my libertarian principles adhere to a belief that the best solution to the centralization of capital in the hands of an elite class is a free currency market, I was willing to compromise my principles in order to organize with progressives in my community towards a practical solution that I believed, and still believe, would alleviate many of the problems caused by poverty and wealth inequality in my rural county. Unfortunately, we lost the election due to pushback from the county Board of Supervisors. Though throughout the process I kept my libertarian and “conspiracy theory” credentials away from public view, this is the best example I have of creating compromise with those of other ideologies for the benefit of the people at large. Sometimes it is important to be pragmatic, rather than idealistic, in order to place the needs of the community above our particular point of view.

Though many of my ideals include more radical libertarian principles I view my work within the context of benefiting the 7th generation. It’s simply not practical to imagine a truly decentralized world developing overnight. We must work toward a sustainable future that may involve an incremental approach. Small steps made in this lifetime to decentralize power, while empowering local communities to self-organize, will start a trend that can result in a system of political economy that works in symbiosis with nature, as opposed to the domination model currently in place. This concept will be a major theme of this blog moving forward.

I think this level of pragmatism is more important now than ever before. If we can all just agree that the goal is to decentralize power, both government and corporate, in order to combat the forces of technocratic fascism that threaten our very way of life, might we be able to discover a path to unity that could create a political force powerful enough to get the job done? In this way could we put ideological differences aside for the moment, and have these conversations at the community level once empowered to make these decisions for themselves? Shouldn’t we at least try?

To be clear, I am not attached to everyone thinking the way I do. Of course, each one of you must move forward in the way that feels right for you. I am not even sure that creating any type of unified organization is the best way forward. Perhaps it is best that those who resist technocracy do so through smaller groups of like-minded thinkers united only by the desire to maintain our connection to the natural world.

We know that we are up against a system with access to unlimited money and essentially unlimited military power and technology. I do not see a successful outcome for humanity and future generations if our movement continues to expend energy on internal conflicts, whether on ideological or factual grounds when all of us united in the awareness of our current clear and present danger could be focused on the much larger task at hand.

Towards this end, it is my hope to use this blog not only to express a libertarian perspective that is anti-imperialistic, anti-technocratic, and offers a system of political economy in symbiosis with the natural world, but also to construct a universal messaging that transcends the internal conflicts which are currently preventing us from at least respecting that we are all doing what we can from a place of positive intention. If we could simply agree to focus our work on educating the bulk of humanity that still may not understand the precipice upon which we collectively find ourselves, I think we have a very good chance of preventing the dystopian future currently foisted upon us by those interested only in profiting the few at the expense of the many.

The conflict between Alison McDowell and Derrick Broze has provided the context to begin a longer conversation that, it is my hope, can ultimately put an end to the left/right paradigm that has plagued the vast majority for decades and provided a divisive political paradigm ultimately in service to the elite. While I wrote this series in defense of the libertarian perspective, it is not my desire to create conflict with those who disagree. Rather, I seek to enlighten those who fear libertarianism that our philosophy is one with good intentions and an open-mindedness that allows for compromise in deference to the unity I believe is required to combat the current existential threat.

I hope that these ideas of a “top/down” paradigm that focuses on our common goal to decentralize power are a good start. Essays to come will focus on dialectic and dialogue in the hopes of constructing a pedagogy of liberation, as well as an analysis of the ancient Greek concepts of bios and techne to begin to describe what I call the Theory of Natural Economy in contrast to the machine world Metaverse that is currently being constructed.

Please consider subscribing if you are interested in learning more about my perspective, and I look forward to engaging in the broader conversation as those of us resistant to the technocratic takeover continue to seek a healthier relationship with life, the planet, and each other as we move forward.

For more information about my work and to find all episodes of my podcasts, go to www.theshiftnow.com. Paid subscribers to The Populist Papers will receive a subscription to “The Shift with Doug McKenty” and have access to all feature-length versions of the podcast.